I didn’t transition for the metaphysics

Content note for anti-trans, scientifically illiterate nonsense.

A couple weeks ago, I came across this rather remarkable Twitter post from Benjamin Ryan, a so-called writer about trans issues, commenting on a recent, anonymously-authored HHS report.

This post is… stunning in how ignorant it is. The idea that trans people transition due to some kind of grand ontological theory of gender, and not to correct a misalignment between outward characteristics and inherent identity, is astonishingly detached from reality. I know how absurd it is, because:

• I am an honest conveyor of my experiences, and
• I absolutely did not transition for the metaphysics. Rather, I transitioned because I used to have negative feelings about my body and the way others perceived me, and now I have positive feelings about those things.

The world is remarkably complicated. To attempt to make sense of the world, we make models, or maps, of it. As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. When we are faced by a mismatch between our model and observed reality, we seem to pick one of two options.

The first is to continue to insist that the map is accurate, to deny the existence of a mismatch. This is bad. In the limit, one must inevitably use force to reshape the territory to fit the map. In other words, it is vicious. I’d hesitate to say that this first option is the root of all evil, but it certainly lies underneath a large chunk of it.

The second option is to acknowledge the model’s limitations, and if necessary, expand the model to fit these observations. This is good; it is virtuous. It is how I’ve tried to live my life, with a sense of curiosity and a desire to truly understand the world.

Philosophy, like all attempts at sense-making, consists of creating models. To the extent that the existence of trans people has metaphysical or ontological implications, the philosophy lies downstream of these observations.

It is common for simpler models to fail in the limit. For example, we now know that the traditional understanding of time isn’t quite right. When the measurements that seemed to belie this understanding were conducted, Einstein understood that traditional Newtonian physics models could not explain them. He came up with new models—new kinds of relativity¹. We now know that this new understanding of time is more correct, and it would be weird to encounter a 21st century physicist who insists that time is absolute.

Similarly, it is weird to encounter a 21st century professional in the field who insists on the traditional understanding of gender, and especially one who does so for metaphysical reasons. Just like with time, we now know that the traditional understanding of gender is a decent approximation that fails for a small but non-trivial percentage of the population (like myself!). But this time, getting it wrong has serious human rights implications.

A bunch of people, likely through conversations in private mailing lists and group chats, have memed themselves into believing that their ontological maps must be correct—that any mismatches between it and the territory must be a mistake in the territory. To be clear, because free will does not exist, it is not their fault. It is a systemic issue, a matter of the environment these people are immersed in: one of ignorance, not knowledge.

However, it is a real problem that the tendency to reject observed reality in favor of existing models is ascendant. There have always been people who proudly cling to their models as accurate descriptions of all of reality even as scientific understanding evolves. After a lull of a few decades, this group is now increasingly in charge. This tendency must be overcome, both at the individual and at the societal level.

I’ll leave you with one last thought. You might have heard about the UK’s Cass review in the mainstream media, but perhaps less so about how it has been derided by working professionals. People far more knowledgeable than I am have said it “violates its own evidentiary standards”, that it is “completely contrary to the interests of adolescents in need of help”, and that it “transgresses medical law, policy, and practice”.

I’m nowhere qualified to critique all of it, but I just want to point to one little thing (p. 14): the claim that “medication is binary”.

To the best of my knowledge, no one in the media has pointed out that “medication is binary” is simply false.

• Any doctor who specializes in trans care can tell you that there is a wide variety of methods for a nonbinary medical transition, from different hormone therapies to nonbinary surgeries.
• Besides that, many nonbinary people like myself go through mostly binary medical transitions, and we do so for a variety of reasons.

Yet, supposed papers of record like the Washington Post, when writing approvingly about the HHS report, have nothing to say about this untrammeled display of disinformation. (See also, Gell-Mann amnesia.)

I’m unapologetic about my moral values: suffering is bad, knowledge is better than ignorance, and building new models is better than clinging to old ones. I hope you are as well.